1. Comment #81182 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 11:09 am

Oh please, D'Souza is a twerp of the lowest order.

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #81184 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 11:10 am

I really wish D'Souza would educate himself in rational arguments and critical thinking.

A little disappointing that Hitchens didn't tear him in half, instead adopting a defensive/passive approach. Especially in the face of so many ad hominem arguments directed at him.

Frustratingly biased and poorly structured 'debate'.

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

3. Comment #81199 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 11:56 am

D'souza doesnt seem to understand methodological naturalism at all.

And correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the whole "Christianity is compatible with science, because early scientists were Christians" a genetic fallacy?

But in the end, I really dont think Hitchens did too bad at all. D'souza had to rely on the same old cop out answers that apologists have been using forever, such as "hell is locked from the inside." I mean seriously, I dont see how anyone can actually view the idea of "love me or burn" as a nice idea.

Never forget that Hitler burned Anne Frank to death because she was Jewish. We call Hitler evil. God burned Anne Frank for eternity because she was Jewish. Christians call God loving.

Also, lets try and not stoop to just insulting D'Sousa and using ad hominems.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

4. Comment #81200 by Pin_Cushion on October 24, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Okay, my mind is reeling from his sloppily strung together logic regarding Hume and miracles.

1) Scientific laws may not be universal. We can't see everything at once, so we can't know.
2) Since we can't know everything then miracles might be possible (something quantum physics is quite plain about).
3) Since miracles might be possible then everything in the Christian Bible must be true because its contents are miraculous. <--HUH?!?

And he makes this claim by referencing HUME?! ::boggle::

Other Comments by Pin_Cushion

5. Comment #81201 by TAG on October 24, 2007 at 12:04 pm

I went to this debate here in NYC. I wrote about it on my blog. Here's part of what I said:

Last night I went to the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinseh S'Souza. Hitchens wasn't in top form, and D'Souza probably won the debate in terms of audience support. But the audience was stacked against Hitchens with 80 to 90% being Christian in my estimate.

D'Souza threw out numerous mischaracterizations of atheists, and statements such as atheism and belief in scientific laws requiring a leap of faith just like Christianity, which Hitchens never properly attacked.The final audience question period favored D'Souza as well, since most questions went to Hitchens, D'Souza got the last word in almost every time. Hitchens often made arguments that seemed to go over the heads of the audience. Once he made the point that the so-called designer didn't do a very good job since most of the solar system and universe is uninhabitable. However he made this argument with too much literary flair since I saw the young Christians sitting in front of me shaking their heads in confusion, not because they disagreed, but because they plainly did not understand what Hitchens was saying.

When Dinesh mentioned Hitchens book on Mother Theresa "The Missionary Position" the young Christians in front of me freaked out. Their eyes were bugging out and their jaws were hitting the floor! After all the things Hitchens had said so far, I couldn't believe that book title getting the biggest reaction.

The rest is at:
http://thatatheistguysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/hitchens-vs-dsouza-debate.html

I also linked to the Hitchens Watch blog which has a more thorough report.

Other Comments by TAG

6. Comment #81202 by JerryD385 on October 24, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Again, D'Douza uses half truths and made up statistics to "debate". These deceitful tactics are akin to those of creationists. While I think ripping their arguments to sheds in print is a useful method, engaging in debates with these con-men are doing atheists no good.

As Dawkins never gives credibility to creationists by engaging them in public debate, people like Hitchens and Shermer should have avoided these liars and continued debating the murkies like McGrath. While those murkies may be irrational and wrong, I can at least believe they honestly believe what they say. D'Souza is obviously being deliberately deceitful and should not be given the time of day. It only gives him more clout and power ("Ive gone toe to toe with Hitchens, therefore I'm legit")

Other Comments by JerryD385

7. Comment #81204 by BicycleRepairMan on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Firstly D'Souza has completely misunderstood evolution and its connection to morality and consciousness, apparantly, he has not understood any works on evolution published since "The selfish Gene" and still takes up a social-darwinistic view of things, thinking that all living creatures are selfish etc. Specially stupid it gets when he seems to think that we are (or can be) programmed by evolution to only treat our immediate next of kin good..

He is quite annoying in his misrepresentation of scientific facts, Lets see him debate PZ Myers or Dawkins on these issues of origin of morality.

Hitchens is great, but sometimes I feel that his answers are pre-made statements and not direct debunks and responses to the opponents claims, that would work if the audience is inside your own head, (or perhaps in your book) but they are not.

It is of course difficult to answer all the half-truths and idiocy D'Souza manages to cram into one sentence, but atleast the following ought to be said:

D'Souza keeps on with his "We both assume laws" nonsense that "proves" a law-giver, Well, our assumptions of universal law first of all is not a baseless assumption. ALL the evidence, whether it be daily life things (sun goes up and down-stuff) or deep science, it all seems to follow laws. Secondly, this discovery is not a RESULT of modern christian thinking, it is the SOURCE of it. The bible is overwhelmingly NOT a "all humans are equal" type book, this is an interpretation that came LATE, as a result of continual opposition to the Christian doctrine.

I'll give Christianity this: Unlike, say, Islam, Christianity is diffuse and inconsistent and self-contradictory enough to leave much to interpretation and guesswork, this ALLOWED for much of the science to florish, not because of, but despite of, a dominant religion.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

8. Comment #81205 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I'm fairly certain D'Souza's debate consisted of many ad hominems directed at Hitchens.

For example, after cutting Hitchens off, D'Souza then blasts him for not citing every example of secular crimes against humanity. How is that constructive? How is that not seen as a childish and immature tactic?

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

9. Comment #81208 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm

On Comment #4:

Syllogistic fallacy

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

10. Comment #81209 by JammyB on October 24, 2007 at 12:12 pm

D'Souza must have either a very bad memory or be a serial liar. I've not watched all of this yet but please:
- You might have thought it was the religious blowing up skyscrapers, abortion clinics and each other who are "militant", but oh no, turns out it's us book-writing atheists. The pen is mightier than the sword I guess.
- We have all been lied to, burn your history books and unremember all those facts and photos you've seen, Hitler was in fact an atheist! Presumably the non-God didn't tell him not to kill those jews then.
- The laws of physics are not consistent, perhaps D'Souza could help to demonstate that gravity is not consistent by jumping out of the window.

D'Souza asks how particles "know" how to interact - obviously they must have souls duhhhh!

Other Comments by JammyB

11. Comment #81210 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:15 pm

On Comment #6: "engaging in debates with these con-men are doing atheists no good. "

Dawkins wont debate regarding Intelligent Design as he does not want it to be seen as a "Science". Dawkins does take part in religious debates.

I do agree that D'Souza may feel validated by simply engaging in debate with Hitchens, but written arguments are only read by so many people and can only go so far. There does need to be a push Vocally against theism, IMHO.

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

12. Comment #81211 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 12:18 pm

"D'Souza must have either a very bad memory or be a serial liar".

Given everything else I've read about him, I'll go with the latter.

Other Comments by Diacanu

13. Comment #81213 by Gymnopedie on October 24, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I can't figure out if Dinesh prefers to misrepresent his opposition's arguments or ignore the arguments. His arguments clearly show he hasn't understood Dawkins's, Hitchens's, and Harris's books that he claims to have read. IMO Hitchens might as well be debating a Bobo doll here.

I am a bit surprised that Hitchens received the large support he did in this venue.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

14. Comment #81214 by robotaholic on October 24, 2007 at 12:27 pm

ok im getting irritated - if you saw the other debate with mr despoeirj203jfa then you were just waiting for Hitch to tear him apart - i am sad that he didn't do that-

Other Comments by robotaholic

15. Comment #81215 by JelloWasabi on October 24, 2007 at 12:27 pm

The argument that 'Christianity wins by default' since science doesn't explain everything needs to be exposed and dismantled whenever it is displayed.

Other Comments by JelloWasabi

16. Comment #81216 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 12:30 pm

"I can't figure out if Dinesh prefers to misrepresent his opposition's arguments or ignore the arguments. His arguments clearly show he hasn't understood Dawkins's, Hitchens's, and Harris's books that he claims to have read".

Keep in mind he's before an audience that likely hasn't read or understood them either.
Therefore, all he has to do is shovel lovely sounding bullshit, soak up the applause, and ignorance wins the day.

He worked for Reagan, and that old reptile was all about lovely soundbites.
"There you go again", "it's morning in America", "tear down that wall", "whheellll".

Four more years!! Four more years!!
D'uhr!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

17. Comment #81217 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

*Crickets*

....too soon?

Other Comments by Diacanu

18. Comment #81218 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 12:43 pm

D'Souza is the most challenging debater we have thus far encountered. He is extremely intelligent and in possession of superior verbal abilities. He wins many arguments because he is able to assemble a vast array of "factoids" that appear to back his claims. These factoids often have the effect of overwhelming his opponents; since his opponents likely cannot remember all the inaccuracies, and they do not have the time to refute them, he often comes out on top. This may be mendacious, but it also may be that he is so biased that, as Hitchens says, D'Souza actually believes what he's saying.

Often we see D'Souza using a sophisticated "god of the gaps" ideology. For example, his argument that science does not know everything [or cannot prove universal, unwavering laws], and therefore miracles are possible. Ken Miller uses this line of reasoning when he asserts that because there is inherent indeterminacy at the quantum level [and it is impossible to create tools that would eliminate the indeterminacy], this is the space that god can occupy, where the laws of the universe can seemingly be broken.

I think many debaters fail to educate the public [and their opponents] that scientists don't claim to have all the answers and that's ok. We're working on it, as Dawkins says. Most of us admit our ignorance when we don't know something. We must strive to fill in the gaps with facts, not fairies.

Other Comments by oxytocin

19. Comment #81221 by alovrin on October 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

D'Souza's opening statement, goes something like this
Im going to use the atheist's tools of reason logic and evidence to outsmart the atheist's.

..Well I suppose that's easier than using them to prove god exists.

Other Comments by alovrin

20. Comment #81222 by JelloWasabi on October 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Don't you think that most of D'Souza's arguments could have been completely ruined if the the 'Jesus wins by default' pov was hammered on. That just seems like such a great point to make over and over.

Are there any debaters out there who can think of a better way to address the issues (nonissues) brought up by D'Souza?

Other Comments by JelloWasabi

21. Comment #81225 by Mango on October 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Bill O'Reilly and D'Souza think it denigrates scientists to remind them that they don't know all the answers to life's big questions. Scientists are happy to say they don't yet know, yet theists see that as a weakness and feel comforted by their own revealed Truth.

It's a basic misunderstanding of how science works that D'Souza exploits to win over a scientifically-ignorant audience.

D'Souza says it's as big of a leap of faith not to accept God as to accept him. I can't accept that he actually believes the bile he vomits during a debate.

Other Comments by Mango

22. Comment #81226 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 24, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Can we get a loud cheer for the Hitch? And can we all agree that D'Souza is a bufoon?

Honestly, the man reminds me of nothing so much a monkey who has been placed in a suit and strategically shaved. I've seen him thrashed in debate by other Christians, serious, intelligent ones such as Robert Spencer, and believe me, he doesn't come off much better even among his coreligionists.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

23. Comment #81227 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 1:04 pm

As entertaining as I find these debates, I can't help but think that they give too much credence to theist view.

This reminds me of the creationist v science, 50/50 possibility of being right point of view, attempting to lever itself into our classrooms.

By offering these nutters equal air-time, as it were, the rationalist is accepting that the nutter may have a valid argument that needs debating at all.

I assume this prostitution of rational thought in this context, is usually done with the intent of exposure to ideas, or to line the back-pocket, in the hope that they are exposed as the fools they obviously are.

Is the only forum for atheistic and rational views to be expressed in the public arena to be in debate with more deranged lunatics? They have the pulpit, countless television opportunities to fleece the vulnerable and pseudo news channels to bang on about their worthless, crass and childish notions. What do normal people have? Forums preaching to the converted and...

D'Souza seems to have one hugely inflated opinion of his own worth. But he comes with well prepared and researched bullsht.

I wonder if derision, spiced with humour and a refusal to take to the stage on equal terms is not a more appropriate way in which to to deal with these over-inflated, self-congratulatory, charlatans and twits.

Other Comments by Roll

24. Comment #81229 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on October 24, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Everyone one of D'Souza's arguments was complete rubbish. He was conveniently hopping between reason and belief. The quality of the audience was pathetic! These guys need to be really taken on. They are preaching ignorance very effectively and in a very convincing manner.

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

25. Comment #81230 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I giggle like a school girl in anticipation of Hitchens savaging some unsuspectng theist, but he seemed a little rough around the edges here.

However, the original article completely misrepresented the exchange, given the environment, he more than held his own.

Still, the McGrath thing was glorious. I'd love to see another one of those.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

26. Comment #81232 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Mango, I agree with you. This is where the wishful thinking argument for religion comes in [as was briefly discussed in the Shermer debate]. If science does not have answers to a particular question, one gets the impression that that gap in our knowledge MUST be filled with something, even if it's a rice cake. People need to understand that gaps in knowledge are ok and that we are in the business of seeking facts, not pumping Novocain.

Other Comments by oxytocin

27. Comment #81233 by cowalker on October 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

If I were going to debate the existence of God with a believer, I wouldn't allow him to cite the RESULTS of humans HAVING religious beliefs as proof that the beliefs themselves are true. If you can demonstrate that kids behave because they don't want Santa to leave coal in their stocking, it doesn't prove that Santa really exists. It just proves that belief in Santa has a good effect on their behavior. Of course you might also be able to demonstrate that it has a bad effect on the behavior of some kids, making them more greedy and gift-focused than they would otherwise have been. And what if children who don't believe in Santa behave or don't behave? None of it addresses the question of whether the jolly old elf comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

So no body counts allowed.

If D'Souza is happy to stand up there and argue that it doesn't matter if Christianity is true because it's good for society, then there's no point in arguing about whether it's true. Then we can have the argument about whether it is good for society. They are two separate arguments, and mixing them up is an approach that helps people like D'Souza avoid clear thinking on the subject.

Other Comments by cowalker

28. Comment #81235 by ironman on October 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

I think the article in The Observer doesn't do justice to what I've seen in the video footage. I think the barrage of D'Souza's quasi-thruths are hard to disprove, regarding the assumption that Hitchens would only receive equal time.

Furthermore, the odds of christians versus non-christians were quite stacked I think regarding the applause D'Souza received from his theistic rants. Especially I was struck that D'Souza posed that Hitchens didn't try to disprove God. Whereas D'Souze didn't even defend his existence in the first place! How could a rational human being assume his existence by default? How could he forgo the burden of proof? Christianity needed a prophet for Christ sake!

Other Comments by ironman

29. Comment #81236 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on October 24, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Ignorance ALWAYS wins. Look there is empirical evidence: nearly 1.5 billion Muslims, 2.5 billion Christians, .... + other followers of other faiths. They have all voted with their feet and they have surrendered to ignorance.

I wonder why science never wins, even though it is science that provides food, shelter and explanation for wonderment.

Fear, insecurity, fear of unknown, fear of after death, fear death, decay, disease.... are much stronger than desire for truth.

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

30. Comment #81237 by Thor on October 24, 2007 at 1:15 pm

What oxytocin said: as much as I dislike D'Souza, he is the most able debater I have seen go up against Hitchens or any of the others on our team yet.

One more point I'd like to make
we atheist are sometimes at a disadvantage when debating Christian who tell us how Christianity ended all kinds barbaric traditions that had existed all over the world: human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery etc... (as if these were prime examples of humanist thinking and not often functions of religous believes themselves - sometimes even the earlier forms of Christianity)
Even if we accepted this claim at face value - and I don't, but let's assum it for the sake of the argument - an atheist should not feel the necessity to praise or endorse Christianity. We have to remember that all the Christian is saying is that his religion is better than that of some prehistoric stone-age culture. If that's the standard you want to measure yourself on...

Christianity is but one of a huge number of religions that have existed in the history of mankind mankind. History, however, is nothing but the long march of cultural evolution of humanity. That some religions/traditions, in this case Christianity, contained values and practices that proved superior in terms of social cohesion and civilizational advance to those of other religions, like those of the Celts or some African tribes does not mean that we have to embrace Christianity - no we should embrace that which has proven even more beneficial, in terms of explaining to us the truth about the world and in its effects for how we live together in society: a naturalistic worldview that leaves all those irrational bronze-age myths behind.

Just to give you an example: I have no problem stating that globally speaking the tradition of Christianity as it exists nowadays in the world is one I prefer over Islam. That doesn't make me a Christian - on the contrary: I strongly dislike many parts of the so-called Judeo-Christian morality and there countless exapamples of deeply troubling developments among Christian fundamentalists.
However, the tooth of time has simply done its work on Christianity than it has on Islam.

So when people like D'Souza say that Christianity is better than the cult of headshrinkers on the island of Tonga I am charitable enough to grant him that. I would still insist on pointing out that my worlview, which doesn't include the possiblity of people rising from their graves or the earth stopping it's orbit around the sun if god happens to wish it is one I very much prefer over a tradition based on the belief in a 2000-year old middle-eastern sky-god.

Other Comments by Thor

31. Comment #81238 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Firstly, I just lost a very large comment because even though this board thanked me for my post, it had already auto-logged me out and the post was actually lost to oblivion (and the 'back' button does me no good). So, I'll try again, but with brevity:

I just slogged through all of the videos. Unfortunately, the "thrashing" we expected did not occur, and it is not entirely Hitchens' fault. D'Souza is a master of utilizing the debate format to his advantage. He holds most of his strawman arguments for his rebuttals, and due to the Q&A format, Hitchens is unable to refute. Perfect hucksterism to the nth degree. The part where it is Christopher's fault is that I think he's not used to debating with someone as articulate and finely tuned as D'Souza. D'Souza is an entirely different animal than what Hitchens is used to debating on MSNBC or Fox News. Christopher's standard boiler plate just does not 'win' with a guy like this and with an audience as ignorant as this. I think this experience will be good for Christopher and will challenge him to jump the rhetorical rut and compel him towards a more finely tuned and at the same time broader based argument for future debates - one that is flexible enough to tangle with any kid of opponent, format, and audience.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

32. Comment #81239 by DPR on October 24, 2007 at 1:18 pm

d'souza has a poll on his site on who won:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/

Other Comments by DPR

33. Comment #81241 by Pin_Cushion on October 24, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Personally, I think Hitch is the "winner" because he made me snort loudly in laughter at the mention of a rabbit that was religious as an Ex Rabbit! I love Pythonisms.

There were quite a few more times that I chuckled, and I think that Hitch is by far the funniest and most emotionally accessible or the two debators. He really seems to be saying the things he is saying because he's morally offended that I've been lied to. D'Souza sounds like he's really trying to sell me something, and really cares about whether I buy it. In fact, the linchpin of Hitchens' entire ideology is the statement, "that it is immoral to lie to children and ignorant/uneducated people." I never once heard D'Souza even approach this argument. That's because he can't. If he does he has to either claim that everything in the Bible (and therefore taught in Sunday School to millions of children) is true, or he has to admit that lying for a good reason is okay (which flies in the face of the percieved "Christian Ethic").

All of D'Souza's argument dance around the entire concept of truth. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife, so it's okay to tell every child that there is one. Christianity has done great things, so it's basis in truth is irrelevant. Atheism has done great harm, so it's basis in truth is also irrelevant. Dawkins said it best, I think, when he wrote that if the universe is actually indifferent to our existence hadn't we best know about it? D'Souza would vehemently disagree.

Other Comments by Pin_Cushion

34. Comment #81242 by AJ Rae on October 24, 2007 at 1:22 pm

D'Souza sounds a bit too similar to the character in a certain comedy sketch (thanks to Hemant friendlyatheist.com). Of course, like the comedy sketch, everything D'Souza says is complete bullshit and irrational nonsense. It's painful to listen to him talk about "rationality", it's cringe worthy.

Rationality? Christian! Sagan? He's as Christian as they come! Dawkins? Softly spoken, talks at length about the wonders of nature, obviously an Anglican Bishop!

Other Comments by AJ Rae

35. Comment #81243 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Comment #81222 by JelloWasabi

Are there any debaters out there who can think of a better way to address the issues (nonissues) brought up by D'Souza?

For specific arguments in front of specific audiences, yes, but for arbitrary arguments in front of arbitrary audiences, no. For example, suppose you were transported back in time and found yourself trying to defend someone who was accused of witchcraft because the local populous had been frightened by a solar eclipse. The audience does not have the knowledge of the motions of the earth and moon to provide the context for understanding your first choice for explanation. You will have to connect to something they do understand if you want to make any progress.

Yes, we should make a compendium of all the specious arguments these people trot out, but it will, also, be necessary to generate a number of answers that can be used based on who is listening. In many cases, you can't win outright then and there, but what you say can connect with what people do know is true, and make a small extension in the direction of enlightenment. Add up enough small extensions and you will get there.

Other Comments by Quine

36. Comment #81244 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm

It is not unusual to hear lot of clapping for D'Souza in a Christian University. It is his turf. What interested me was that a significant portion of crowd cheered for Hitchens as well.

That is change. Many people must have left that day considering things that they didnot reflect upon before and that will bring about more change.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

37. Comment #81246 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:29 pm

82abhilash,
Sadly, I suspect that the xians cheered for D'Souza, and the non-theists cheered for Hitchens. The likelihood that this changed anyone's opinion is fairly low.

Other Comments by oxytocin

38. Comment #81247 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 1:33 pm

D'Souza is a perfect punching bag on which novice atheists can practise their debate skills. The worst, most intellectually dishonest apologist for religion I've ever come across.

Other Comments by Tanglewood

39. Comment #81248 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm

oxytocin,

I am sure of it. But now the xians has all heard Hitchen's arguments. They cannot be as sure of themselves as they once used to be. Some fence sitters who believe in belief will fall. Others will find their religion to be less magical and curse Hitchens force enforcing clarity.

Besides all that they also know that they must now live in a world where we exist and are watching their every move.

I say that is corrosive.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

40. Comment #81249 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yes, we should make a compendium of all the specious arguments these people trot out, but it will, also, be necessary to generate a number of answers that can be used based on who is listening. In many cases, you can't win outright then and there, but what you say can connect with what people do know is true, and make a small extension in the direction of enlightenment. Add up enough small extensions and you will get there.

You are absolutely right, Quine. That was Hitchen's problem in this debate - he didn't modulate his message to the make-up of his audience. We all instinctively do this in everyday conversation, but it's much more difficult in a formal debate, so I'm not entirely criticizing Christopher on this. His standard arguments and tactics usually carry weight on a talking head "news analysis" program on FOX or CNN or in other debates with different opponents, formats, and audiences. I think in this debate Hitchens was hamstrung not just by the format and D'Souza's hucksterism, but also by his inability to tune his message to the situation at hand. I don't think I'm being overly harsh to Christopher for saying that. I think he himself might have a "transcendent" experience because of this and change his rhetoric and tactics regarding the atheist vs. theist argument so that he may be more flexible in dealing with different arguments and settings. At least I hope so. I don't want to see a liar like D'Souza "beat" another atheist again. Having said that, I think if this debate had been sponsored by the Royal Society or Google or some other more "intellectually friendly" venue, Hitchens would definitely have had the upper hand, especially in the hackneyed "Q&A" session. What Christopher needed was an audience that wouldn't let D'Souza's lies and distortions off the hook, because the format didn't allow Hitchens to do so in an effective manner.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

41. Comment #81250 by Mr DArcy on October 24, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Having watched the debate, it is now obvious that far from losing, Hitchens did really well, and the audience responded well. A clue to points well made, even if the audience was predominantly Christian.

Unlike other posters, I did not find D'Souza particularly obnoxious, nor was he particularly convincing.

In the battle of ideas, which may take a long time, Hitchens is doing his bit in helping to dispel superstitious ideas.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

42. Comment #81251 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:44 pm

82abhilash,
I hope you're right about that. I wonder, though, if there's a xian forum where your counterpart might say the same thing about a non-theist in the audience. From our position, we find D'Souza's argument's thoroughly delerious, but to many xians, they seem perfectly logical. I think it's really a matter of orthogonal worldviews. I think it's safe to assume that many xians in the audience thought Hitchens was a loon that needed to be saved.

Other Comments by oxytocin

43. Comment #81253 by crazy4blues on October 24, 2007 at 1:53 pm

While several have pointed out D'Souza's sophistry, there is something else going on. D'Souza is on a greater mission that goes well beyond the mere refutation of atheism; he's "throwing in" for Jesus because that's what the American Republican Party and the conservative movement are about now. He's been writing books and going on conservative tirades (using the same rhetorical tactics) for 20 years now, and it is only recently that he's focussed on Christianity so much. Basically, as an American conservative, he has no choice but to do so because that is the most powerful zeitgeist in that political movement. It's come to this for American conservatives: Jesus = State. No member of the U.S. Republican Party can be elected w/o genuflecting to the Christian Right. It used to be that you could simply say you were the toughest on crime, taxes, and government spending. Now, you must demonstrate how much you believe in end-of-times theology in order to hold office.

Other Comments by crazy4blues

44. Comment #81256 by Colwyn Abernathy on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

And D'Souza completely ignores the deaths of those EUROPEAN WITCHES BURNED AS HERETICS. Anyone got a rough figure on those? Betcha it was more than eighteen....dumbass...

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

45. Comment #81257 by Buddha on October 24, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Hitchens did OK, his only real stumbling is that he's not able to tackle D'Souza's science based strawmen head on. Methinks Prof Dawkins would be a more formidable opponent.

BTW the poll on D'Souza's site (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/) has Hitchens in the lead:

Christopher Hitchens 77%
Dinesh D'Souza 16%
There were no winners 7%

Other Comments by Buddha

46. Comment #81260 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Hello, Mr. Hitchens? We at the Christian College wondered if you wouldn't mind awfully, coming along to discuss why Christianity doesn't really suck that badly..."

"Thank you, for your most acceptable offer. I would be glad to kick your head in for that amount of gratuity."

"Thanks, we must all accept our suffering for our faith in nonsensical shite"

"You're welcome!"

Other Comments by Roll

47. Comment #81264 by Richard Dawkins on October 24, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Only a decibel meter could seriously think D'Souza got the better of the debate. In every one of his orations, he simply let his voice crescendo to a shout. As soon as the dopey audience heard him shouting (it wouldn't have mattered what he was shouting about) they started automatically applauding. Hitchens, by contrast, was actually making valid points. D'Souza said some astonishingly stupid things, but because he shouted them at the top of his voice, the audience assumed that he must be saying something sensible. Deeply depressing.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

48. Comment #81269 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Tanglewood-

If you think D'Souza is the most intellectually dishonest apologist you have ever seen... you need to get more into Christian apologetics :)

Try anything by the Way of the Master folks for starters. Then check out the book "I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", the move into "Case for a Creator."

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

49. Comment #81272 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 2:20 pm

*Waves "hi" to Dr. Dawkins*
:D

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #81273 by mrnorman on October 24, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I have a question for all. Is it time that Dawkins comes out to play with D'souza?

D

Other Comments by mrnorman